Talk:Dominican Republic/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Dominican Winter Baseball League

In the sports section there should be mention of LIDOM. Just because the MLB is in the U.S., it doesn't validate it more that the Dominican Winter Baseball League. As such there should be mention of our teams; Tigres, Aguilas, Leones, Toros, Estrellas, & Gigantes or at the very least the Dominican Winter Baseball League (LIDOM).

El Mayimbe (talk) 13:09, 16 July 2010 (UTC)El Mayimbe

So mention them. Be sure it's cited from reliable sources, or that the articles linked are so cited. - BilCat (talk) 13:16, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Fact tags - how old is old

Typically in articles I follow the norm is one to two months to remove items dated by a fact tag. Not all editors are on Wikipedia daily, weekly or even monthly. One month is a good grace period to get citations; two is much better. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:20, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The norm is one to two weeks, not months. It's been challenged and removed. TO keep it, you need to add reliable sources. - BilCat (talk) 02:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Show the policy where it says two weeks. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:26, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Show me where it says two months. I know it used to say one-two weeks, but things do get changed alot on WP without any notice! - BilCat (talk) 02:29, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
It's unstated because articles can have fact tags going back a number of years. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, you said two months, above. I went 'wow! Among the thousands of articles I've seen, it's very common for fact tags to last for many months and even years.' Of course I wish I could satisfy every fact tag, especially in this article, the very day it's placed. But then, I wish I had more time to do a lot more things at WP; and the fact is that there are relatively few of us doing any sourcing, at Wikipedia generally. BTW, I'm pretty sure I didn't add the content BilCat wants to remove, though I've certainly edited it. SamEV (talk) 02:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I used to be a little more tolerant and let six months be my guide. However, I soon came across articles with Fact date=2007, 2008, etc. Two months is plenty to get the citations in order. Yes, I would love to see a fact tag filled tomorrow but Wikipedia is editted by volunteers. And, I did notice that you had editted the article. There is no reason for rapid removal even if it is one month. In fact, it's not like the edit is dragging the article down or it's up for an AfD. ----moreno oso (talk) 02:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
One month is not "rapid". Per WP:V, "Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation." I've challenged it, and attempted to remove it. You want to keep it, then find some reliable sources for it. - BilCat (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You will note WP:V has no time limit. And, I challenged your challenge. And, if you want policy, see WP:IAR which is one of the five pillars. BTW, based upon SamEV's post, you don't have WP:CONSENSUS for removal either. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:01, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Morenooso, there's probably no tougher task than sourcing content added by others. Man, what a pain that is. The curious thing is that just days ago I began a drive to improve this article, which is going to include improved sourcing, so it's kind of unhelpful for someone to get so pushy while you're in the midst of that.
Well, have a nice weekend MO. SamEV (talk) 03:04, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I understand how hard it is to source an article. On one of mine that was up for an AfD, one day made a difference as the citation became available just prior to its conclusion. That's what the five pillars and Wikipedia are all about: improvement. If Wikipedia was run like a tightly wound propeller plane, it would soon crash to the ground. Two months is plenty of time to find or get citations. After that, my button would be pushed too. But, again it goes back to WP:AGF. I really believe that you're trying to improve the article and might let a June fact tag go into September. ----moreno oso (talk) 03:11, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
One of the rasons I edit/watch this page is because I'm intersted in the DR. I used to have a girlfriend from there, and since then I've watched the article. But this is too much. Sam, did you ever think to tell anyone you were on an "improvement drive"? Or to ask for collaboration? Apparently not. Anyway, Sam, this isn't the first time you've reverted me two or three times when yo've disagree with my edits. What do I have to do to earn your respect enough that youll talk to me first? I know I'm an inexprienced user with only 4 years on WP and 57,000+ edits. WHat will be enough for you? It's fine that you disagree, but ganging up on me and forcing your will is not building a true consensus. Seriously, you're continuing to assert article ownership here, and I've had enough. I leave the article to you. Have fun! - BilCat (talk) 04:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
To suggest editors ganged-up on you is extreme non-good faith. ----moreno oso (talk) 04:41, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Stated for the record: By "ganged-up on", I mean the effect, not necessarily the motive, as I can't know that. Reverting me 4 times (yes, I reverted 3 - I'm stubborn!) instead of having a civil discussion first? Yes, I feel like I was "ganged-up on". - BilCat (talk) 04:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
For the record: you were advised this was viewed as a WP:NPA in an informal manner on your talkpage. You chose to revert with another inappropriate non-civil edit summary. Feelings or accusations have no point of basis on this talkpage. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I've made no personal attacks or uncivil comments here or in my edit summaries. Please retract your false statements. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 05:34, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Any editor can see your reverts and edit summaries. Come on, please be real. ----moreno oso (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
You are inferring into my comments something that I never said. Please assume good faith. Thanks - BilCat (talk) 05:56, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Isn't that one of your reverts too? ----moreno oso (talk) 06:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
No, I haven't asked you to AGF in a revert before. - BilCat (talk) 06:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Check your first talkpage revert. You were asked to retract your accusations here. Come, be real. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

They were not "accusations", so there's nothing to retract. Now that that is settled, can I go now? - BilCat (talk) 06:21, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Depends. Do you see your post with the words, "ganging up" in it? Come on, please be real. ----moreno oso (talk) 06:25, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
  • It's not an accusation of collusion, just a statement of the effect of 4 reverts in a row, and they way you two achived your "consensus". So again, there's nothing to retract here. I'm moving on. - BilCat (talk) 06:35, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Just to jump in, there are no specific deadlines in which tagged material needs to be cited for non-BLP topics. While most long-term editors have their own rules of thumb (mine is one month) this differs from editor to editor and article to article. Nick-D (talk) 06:27, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
To jump in further, this section of the 1998 book Ethnic groups worldwide: a ready reference handbook looks like it could be used to cite the topic in question and appears, at first glance, to back up most of the disputed content (let me know if the page in question won't display - Google books content seems to differ from country to country). The content is a bit dated now, but should be OK if there's nothing better. Nick-D (talk) 06:40, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
This 2001 book also looks useful and this 2004 journal article touches on the topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Nick. The list of groups was removed in mid-January because some of the groups had non-reliable sources. I left out Howard's book (the second link; the third is to a review of it) because the groups he list are given by the first source, and because he's mostly concerned with calling Dominicans racist and anti-Haitian. I retrieved the reliable sources from January, but used the first link you gave to source most of the groups. SamEV (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Clarification on Beginning of French Era

I'm A bit confused on exactly when the french Era started and I'm sure other people are to because it says "After her conquest of the Aztecs and Incas, Spain neglected her Caribbean holdings. French buccaneers settled in western Hispaniola, and by the 1697 Treaty of Ryswick, Spain ceded the area to France." But in the next paraggrph it says "France came to own the island in 1795, when by the Peace of Basel Spain ceded Santo Domingo as a consequence of the French Revolutionary Wars." And I know absolutly nothing on the subject so I don't think I'm the correct person to clarify it.MDeBusk (talk) 06:19, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The French and others began to establish themselves in the western part of the island (the future Republic of Haiti) gradually. I doubt there's any kind of firm date. Anyway, in 1697, France received the future territory of Haiti, officially. A century later (1795) France received the east, the future Dominican Republic, the subject of this article. SamEV (talk) 21:51, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Did Tainos called the island of Hispaniola “Kiskeya or Quisqueya”?

This is posted without reference on the “Tainos” section of the article. Today I came across an analysis by University of Puerto Rico’s Pedro L. San Miguel [1], writing in the Spanish newspaper El País. San Miguel in turn quotes 19th century Dominican intellectual César Nicolás Penson that “Quisqueya” is a deformation of “Guisay, Quinsay or Quisay, great cities of the East seek by Columbus on his voyages”.

San Miguel writes that the term Quisqueya “lacks a solid historical foundation for it to be accepted as the name used by the original inhabitants of La Española”. I searched for the original quote by Nicolás Penson and found it in this opinion piece [2] in Dominican Newspaper “El Caribe”. San Miguel affirms that “Quisqueya” usage as the “original” name of the island came as an attempt to distance the country from “Haiti”, which was the preferred term used up to the 18th century, when Dominicans called themselves “Hayti Creoles”.

I believe that San Miguel argument is supported by the fact that in 1821, when José Nuñez de Caceres declared the country independence from Spain in December 1821, he named the new republic “Estado Independiente del Haití Español” [3][ http://www.agn.gov.do/departamentos-agn-dominicana/dep-hemeroteca-biblioteca/historia-dominicana/1431-recientes-ediciones-del-archivo-general-de-la-nacion.html]. Based on that, I think it is accurate to remove The Taínos called the island Kiskeya or Quisqueya ("mother of the earth")’’from this article. San Miguel affirms that the Tainos called the island “Haiti”, which I think is accurate but I would search for more sources before adding that to the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujorge (talk • contribs) 15:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

In Hispaniola it reads, in some sourced statements, that Haití wasn't the natives's name for the whole island, but only for a part of it. It says that las Casas was the one who applied Haití to the island. SamEV (talk) 23:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
SamEV, that's a great catch. It appears them that there was not a single name for the whole island that we know about. I found the text by Las Casas on sale in amazon.com [http://www.amazon.com/APOLOG%C3%89TICA-cualidades-costumbres-Occidentales-pertenecientes/dp/B003ZUJU7Q/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283703613&sr=8-1] for $589.00. That would be an interesting read... but I think I'll better keep looking for other, less pricey sources... ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujorge (talk • contribs) 16:23, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
That's perfectly sensible!
According to this source, [4], the island was called "Civao", which is the origin of "Cibao", I imagine.
Per this other source, [5], the name "Hayti" was first documented by Oviedo y Valdez in 1535. SamEV (talk) 02:41, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
mmmm... this is even more confusing. That source also said that "the island was first named by its inhabitants Quizqueia.." Ulises (talk) 03:23, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, there seems to be a fair bit of confusion among the experts. But I think it's still possible to find out the facts. SamEV (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
                    Dominican Republic



      Capital:Santo Domingo and the largest city
      Offical Language:Spanish
      Ethnic Groups:73% mixed,16% white,11% black
      Demoonyn:Dominican

I am doing a report on Dominican Republic.Why did i got this state is because i would like to do some reseach.I am doing this because i would think the D.R is going to be a great place.Even do i'm not Dominican i would like to see how is there culture is like.Would youi know i would? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.4.68 (talk) 22:19, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Good luck. I hope this article helps you, but ask your teacher if it's OK to cite Wikipedia. SamEV (talk) 22:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


The facts are simple and the arguments pro or con are clear!

Kiskeya or Quisqueya (any of the two are the same but with minor letter changes) was what best described the Tainos in their sense as the "Mother of all Lands", one must recall that other than the main island, Hispaniola owns several smaller islands all around the coasts!

Haiti or Ayiti, was the name used by the same Tainos in reference to the high terrain and mountains on the west of the island. That's how a relative sloped and hilly section of the present Dominican Republic is called Los Haitises, or plural for Ayiti.

The use of the word Quisqueya was not often mentioned in writings for the same identity given by the conquistadores: La Espanola!

One must also understand that other than to speak about Quisqueya by the Tainos from the confines of the island was rare, given that one would not use it unless outside of it or leaving it as well!

Cibao is just a name used by the Tainos to indicate a great Valley or flat lands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.204.44.224 (talk) 00:17, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Could use a media section

Here is a website that may be useful http://tunein.com/radio/Radio-Cima-100-1005-s8613/ .The page contains an audio link.1archie99 (talk) 22:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File:AAL-B738.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AAL-B738.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 12:14, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

New Flag upgrades

hello i just wanted to let everyone know that someone on the Spanish wikipedia has upgraded the flag and the coat of arms of D.R. to a more accurate version and i was hoping someone could transfer the new flag and coat of arms to the English wikipeida, please and thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.218.66 (talk) 18:45, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Duartepico.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Duartepico.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:55, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

File:AALB738STI.JPG Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:AALB738STI.JPG, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status

What should I do?

Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:46, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Error on the 1844-1849 flag

Hi, I'm a Dominican student, I grow up, and in every school book the flag here tagged as "Flag of the Trinitaria from 1844 to 1849" is not the Trinitaria flag, it's the Dominican Republic flag from 1844 to 1849, later it was changed by Pedro Santana, when it got a pale red, almost pink, instead of the red on the 1844-1849 flag.

I would appreciate if that is changed, or at least if someone say what it's the source.

Thanks.

Tenreyro (talk) 18:08, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 29 January 2012

about the hdi of the Dominican Republic; the united nations in the report for 2011 estimate that the hdi is 679


190.167.56.130 (talk) 21:26, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Celestra (talk) 03:30, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 17 March 2012

The first university in the Americas is the UASD in Santo Domingo. Created by a papal bule in 1538 (Universidad Autonoma de Santo Domingo) besides this(the oldest being Colegio de Santa Cruz de Tlatelolco [1] in Mexico) information should be deleted because is no related to the Dominican Republic, is no a verificable information and is meant to change the original one.

Some sources to verify the UASD as the first university in the Americas "El 28 de octubre recién pasado, se celebró aquí el 465 aniversario de la fundación del establecimiento de educación superior más antiguo de América."

http://www.uasd.edu.do/html/website2/detalles/informacion_general.html http://ahora.com.do/Edicion1332/SECCIONES/actualidad4.html http://www.udual.org/CIDU/Revista/29/Maga29.pdf

Leonte Read (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Done Well, sort of. The lede is not a good place for bringing up details unrelated to the article, so I removed the link and the extraneous detail. The fact about UASD being the oldest seems to be a matter of disagreement, so I also removed that from the list of firsts of which it was a part. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 17:44, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Saint Martin

The article mentions that there is another divided island but doesn't mention it. I think a parenthetical mentioning the island of Saint Martin should be put there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.90.14.192 (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 April 2012

Please lets not forget to add in the Sports section the name of our Dominican MVP and Golden Glove award winner for baseball: Plácido Polanco.

Arreglalo1 (talk) 10:40, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Seems reasonable, given the long list of MLB players in the section. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

begin request wikipedia give us a source for the GDP (PPP) and GDP (nominal), is the intenational monetary fund, and this source say that this figures are more high in that organization than in the article about the Dominican Republic,please make an actualization end the request

about the HDI of the Dominican Republic, the United Nactions programme for develotment, say that the HDI in november 2011 is 0.689 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante esmeylinn (talk • contribs) 18:08, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide a source for these numbers (links to the url). ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 April 2012

In the last report of the International Monetary Fund, the GDP(PPP)of the DR is 98.835 billions and the GDP(NOMINAL) is 59.429 billions, about the HDI, the United Nations development programme, estimate for 2011: 0.689, the GINI Coeficient is 48 for 2007 if is used the World Bank and 48.4 if use the CIA for source for 2007. 64.32.105.151 (talk) 14:41, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

 Not done Please provide links to these numbers so we can verify them. ~Adjwilley (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

these are the sources of the new information about the GDP, HDI and the GINI of the Dominican Republic

Jump to: navigation, search http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2012/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?pr.x=44&pr.y=15&sy=2009&ey=2012&scsm=1&ssd=1&sorthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index=country&ds=.&br=1&c=243&s=NGDPD%2CNGDPDPC%2CPPPGDP%2CPPPPC%2CLP&grp=0&a=

[edit] this is the source for the human development index of the dominican republic http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante esmeylinn (talk • contribs) 22:04, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] this is the sourse for the GINI coeficient of the dominican republic https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/dr.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante esmeylinn (talk • contribs) 22:15, 19 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dante esmeylinn (talk • contribs)

Edite Request

I found a reliable source for the ethnicity and the demographics for the Dominican republic in these websites:

  • [6] (Most of the other Latin American country articles have been used from this site, very recommended).
  • [7] (not as reliable, but fair).
  • [8] (This one might not be of help, but check it out).
  • [9] (Very relaible, includes other countries as well, very recommended). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.221.159.43 (talk) 18:18, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Light treatment of criminals

I have no idea what the situation is in Dominican Republic, but I think the "teenagers example" is not a good one. In mosr, if not all, countries teenage criminals are treated milder than adult ones. And what else do you expect? Behead those kids at the city square? Victims' families always demand more punishment. They are always not satisfied with the severity of the sentence. I think, that part should be either removed or replaced with another example. Nomad (talk) 13:54, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Date format

I see the dates have all been changed to month-day-year. I'm not an expert on this but it seems wrong to me. As far as I can tell DR uses day-month-year, see for example Date format by country and [10]. WP:DATESNO suggests retaining the existing format unless there is a good reason to change it. The edit history doesn't say why the format was changed. So why was it? And should it have been? Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:04, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Tourism section

"the contribution of travel and tourism to employment is expected to rise from 550,000 jobs in 2008—14.4% of total employment or 1 in every 7 jobs—to 743,000 jobs—14.2% of total employment or 1 in every 7.1 jobs by 2018."

Something's wrong with those figures. Going from 1 in 7 to 1 in 7.1 is a FALL, not rise. And the percentage is wrong as well. Could the editor check that? Nomad (talk) 13:58, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

That would be a rise in the numbers, but a drop in the proportion, presumably because the total population is expected to rise. Given that the info is four years out of date and the source has disappeared, I suggest just removing this. Kendall-K1 (talk) 18:07, 28 May 2012 (UTC)
Beats me how that was figured out, so I'm in. Want to do the honors? :-) BadaBoom (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

More on the D.R. ethnicity

I’ve been reading with interest the various conversations regarding racial demographics in the Dominican Republic and have been trying for a few weeks now to find an actual source that could finally put this question to rest. My first stop was the country National Statistics Office [11], who are in charge or running the census.

I can’t say I looked at every document on their Website, but among those I read I could not find a single reference to the country actual racial composition in term of percentages. Although I was born and raised in the D.R., I never got to participate in a census and I don’t even know if they tabulate racial information. I know that for my personal I.D. (what they call the “cedula”) they used to ask for skin color, but I don’t know if they do that anymore and probably that type of self-identification is not valid to establish the actual racial makeup of the general population.

As much as everyone else I would like to find another source besides the C.I.A., but the numbers they use (73% multiracial, 16% white and 11% black) appears to be the consensus. I remember seeing similar numbers in the “Almanaque Mundial” [12], which I used to buy every year before the advent of the World Wide Web.

But I did find this Webpage entitled “Origen de la población dominicana” or “Origin of the Dominican people” [13] that put mulattos at 65% of the population and also mentions the different ethnics groups:

Spanish colonizers
African slaves
Canarians introduced during colonial times in the 18th century
Black slaves from the French colony that was to become Haiti
Free blacks brought in from the U.S.
Cubans and Puertorricans (that to complicates matters further, can be of any race)
Blacks from other Caribbean islands
Haitian agricultural workers
Arabs and Turks
Sephardic Jews from Curazao
Chinese
Japanese
Italians
Spanish Republicans that came in after the civil war
German Jews (the book “Tropical Zion” [http://www.amazon.com/Tropical-Zion-Trujillo-Encounters-Interactions/dp/0822344076] provides more information about them, but I believe they were only about 700 and most went to the U.S. and Israel at the end of World War II)
Spanish farmers brought in between 1945-1957
Hungarians… but it says is the quoted page that most were deported because they “misbehaved”

What’s interesting about this page is that it contains a source that can be verified, a book by Bolivar M. Troncoso Morales “Dominicana: Manual de Geografía Turística”. I kept searching and found a .pdf copy of that book [14] (that unfortunately for my neck, was scanned in landscape mode) that put the country racial makeup at 80% mulattos, 10-11% blacks and 9-10% whites.

I found this information on pages 45-48, including what appears to be the original source of quoted above about the origin of the different people who populated the country; but whoever copied the book and uploaded it left out page 47 out and again, there are no numbers attached to all these groups of people.

There is also the fact that this document left out the contribution of the native Taino population, which is not surprising given the widely held belief that they disappeared without a trace and that was debunked a few weeks ago by Dr. Juan Carlos Martínez Cruzado [15] of the University of Puerto Rico.

So if not hard after to understand why it is so hard to come up with real numbers about the actual racial makeup of the country; I’ll keep looking and if I found a good source I’ll post it here for consideration…but don’t hold your breath. Ulises (talk) 05:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)Ulises

I can agree on this last figures except that the 80% would be straight up black, 11% mixed and MAYBE 10% white or whiter looking. Haitians and Dominicans are the SAME people. If Haitians are not regarded as mixed, then neither are Dominicans. If anything, it is wishful thinking! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.26.152 (talk) 17:50, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Dominican and haitians ARE NOT THE SAME PEOPLE, they dont have neither the same origins nor the same cultural/ethnic background. As Jamaicans are not the same people as haitians and dominicans, they all have african roots somehow, but it doesnt mean they are the same (ethnically and/or culturally).

Spaniard rule and Spaniard designer

Gabby Merger (talk|contribs) and I appear to have a difference of opinion on the terms "Spaniard rule" and "Spaniard designer" (diff). I would not disagree that "Spaniard" is clear and neutral. I would not say it's ungrammatical – I guess in this context it's a noun adjunct. All I'm saying is that "Spaniard rule" and "Spaniard designer" do not sound natural to me, a native speaker of English. Also, "that IP address who changed it got reverted on other unexplained things too" is not relevant. – Wdchk (talk) 13:39, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It may not sound as "natural" to you in a sense, but it is technically accurate, and technically "clearer". Saying "Spanish" when referring to Spaniard Spanish is not very clear, and can be ambiguous in readers' minds, when given the fact that (what's called) "Latin America" has the term "Spanish" referred to them as well. But when we say "the Spaniards came over" rather than the more vague "the Spanish came over" (as an example), we know right away for sure clearly what exactly is being referred to. Also, the term "Spanish" (referring to Spaniards) is already sometimes in the article anyway, leaving for variety.
But as far as the "designer", that Oscar studied under, sorry, but to say "Spanish designer" is too vague, and not clear enough. It was a European designer that Oscar worked with, NOT some general "Spanish" person. (The term "Spanish" HAS many times been applied to non-Spaniard "Latin Americans", and therein can lie the problem.) As far as that IP address, yes it's relevant in that that troll did not leave ANY explanation on either this article or on the other article (see his history) that he removed whole sentences from, and where he got rightly reverted (by another editor) for. But as far as the actual subject matter itself here, "Spaniard designer" is simply better and clearer. "Spanish designer" is not technically wrong...and I will not revert back again a million times over this petty nonsense. I'm just saying that "Spaniard" (in general even) should be used a wee bit more, when referring to people from SPAIN. IMHO. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 14:41, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
"Spanish" always means someone or something from Spain. People from Latin American countries might be described as "Hispanic", but never as "Spanish".
Please do not refer to the IP editor (contribs) as a "troll". The three edits they have made so far do not justify that description. I agree with you that edit summaries are desirable, but we don't revert all edits that lack an edit summary. – Wdchk (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
That's not really true. Many people (rightly or wrongly) have used the term "Spanish" to sometimes refer to non-Spaniard people. Latin American people MANY TIMES OVER THE YEARS have been referred to with the generic term "Spanish". Not sure how you don't know that or never heard of that. That you would wrongly say "described as 'Hispanic', but never as 'Spanish'." "Never"? Simply not true. Also, that IP address was at least kind of troll-ish in what he did, especially in that other article (if you bother checking out his history and his other edit), by wholesale removing of whole sentences willy nilly and weirdly, with no explanation or cause. Again, sir, "Spaniard" (especially with the "Spaniard designer" thing) is simply clearer and more accurate. And yes, people have used "Spanish" when referring to non-Spaniard "Hispanics". Rightly or wrongly, some people have used that, in a broad sense for Colombians, Dominicans, Cubans, etc. "Hispanic" MEANS "Spanish" anyway, ultimately. Good day. Gabby Merger (talk) 16:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I did check the IP's edit history and I'm familiar with their edit to the other article. It was me who reverted it. It's still not relevant to this discussion.
Coming back to the discussion topic: I have my opinion, based on my experience, and you have yours. I'm happy to let consensus run its course. – Wdchk (talk) 17:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I'm not saying it's totally relevant to the specifics here necessarily, but just that I was justified in reverting his unexplained removals in this article too. That IP address was out of line, in other words. 1) For changing stuff that didn't really need changing, and 2) doing it with no explanation. But never mind that. As far as "experience", well ok, I guess you never heard "Latin American" people being called with the word "Spanish", in some generic broad sense. But it has happened, and still happens sometimes. And for the casual or maybe not-as-informed reader, wanting to read up on Dominican Republic, seeing things like "Spanish designer", the reader MAY OR MAY NOT know that that's referring specifically to a European Spaniard designer. Most probably will, I guess, but not necessarily all. Same thing with "Spanish rule" versus "Spaniard rule". One is simply clearer wording than the other. That's my only point. It's not that big a deal, but even so. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 00:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Ethnic Racial makeup

We need a more realistic or a more reliable source of census but that's not offensive or old. Im Dominican myself and I know that we tend to believe or describe ourselves from something that we'er not or exagerate. I think that we should find and change the racial makeup to a new and a more reliable census or atleast a genome studies chart. But I have read some books that generally are not found online that have studies around every providences in the Dominican Republic but not every town but which is still pretty impressive and have taken genome samples from 50-330 people i think it was from every place they went. They also did a background checks on the towns history as well as ask people what they describe themselves and the results between the self-choice census and genome studies were strikingly different to About 40%. In the self-choice census in the country was 62% mixed, 27% white, 10% black, and 1% other mainly arabs/lebanese. Now the genome studies they gathered all the samples from all the providences and the results were 46% Mulatto and Griffe=(1/4 white and 3/4 black), 41% Black African (nearly pure to pure) and Griffe, and 13% White European and Quadroon.

But I will do some more research on this, what do you guys think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.236.130 (talk) 23:32, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Quote:«In the self-choice census in the country was 62% mixed, 27% white, 10% black, and 1% other mainly arabs/lebanese.»
About what census are you "writing" about? The Dominican Census does not ask about race neither collect racial data since 1960. ★ Nacho ★ Mailbox ★ 01:04, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Yes they do they did one, the one that you just requoted was on the Spanish wikipedia from the Dominican Republic which was also part of the etnografia de la republica dominicana in the Spanish wikipedia.
The other one done by the genome studies was done from foeringnors who independently go to many countries to findout their genetic make up theyv also done one in Jamaica by the same people and it was 60% mulatto, 20% black, and 20% whites, east indians, and chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.154.236.130 (talk) 17:13, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
Please provide references to reliable sources. Thanks. – Wdchk (talk) 00:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Languages

Main article: Dominican Spanish

The Dominican Republic is almost entirely Spanish speaking. Schools are based on a bilingual education,[citation needed] with English being taught as a secondary language in most schools. Haitian Creole is spoken by much of the population of Haitian descent. There is a community of about 8,000 speakers of Samaná English in the Samaná Peninsula. They are the descendants of formerly enslaved African Americans who arrived in the nineteenth century.[1] Tourism, American pop culture, the influence of Dominican Americans, and the country's economic ties with the United States motivate other Dominicans to learn English.


This part of the wiki page on the DR is false and misleading!

First of all I'm Dominican, went to private schools there, have a well based knowledge of the public education system since I volunteered in many programs with them via our schools. Was born and raised in the Dominican Republic where 100% of the people speak Dominican Spanish!

The fact that the DR has a large influx of undocumented Haitians does not equates into a partly not 100% Spanish speaking nation!! Or are we kids here? If a person from another country reads this up, he/she would think they could just waltz about in the DR and talk their idiom and not Spanish with little to no problem which is not the case!

Haitians from Haiti speak Haitian Kreyole, not so Dominicans! Even the kids born to Haitians living undocumented in the DR can't speak Haitian Kreyole, save for a few words to the their own parents which can't grasp Dominican Spanish fully in some instances!

The following article in education wrongly states that the DR education model is bilingual! Far from that lie, the DR public schools are NOT! Only private schools offer ESL in some very restricting subjects. __________________ BORN AND RAISED DOMINICAN HERE. just wanted to say that all schools n the Dominican Republic teach French as well as English from third grade of elementary school upward. That being said The Dominican educational Model is not Bilingual or multilingual because classes are conducted in Spanish exclusively with the exception of the English as well as french class BUT both French and English are mandatory and required for ALL schools to be taught in the country. It is ILLEGAL for a school that offers any grade from third of elementary and upward to NOT teach both English and French. I lot of people that are over 30 something years old don't know that because back then it was not compulsory. SO maybe the above poster is from that age category. So the statement that only private schools offer ESL classes is completely FALSE and ABSURD and I seriously doubt that you are a real Dominican For that Matter. I think you might be Puerto Rican based on the way to talk. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.115.33.56 (talk) 23:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Ethnologue, Languages of Dominican Republic


- The only official language of the Dominican Republic is Spanish, so there is no reason to put in Wikipedia, in the decryption of the official name of this nation, a french translation. French is not official language in Dominican Republic, so it is not right to appear the Country name in the initial description in french language. French language is speaking in neighboring nation called Haiti, do not confuse Haiti (speak Creole and French) and Dominican Republic - "República Dominicana" (speak only Spanish). These two different countries share the island of Hispaniola, Haiti is located on the left side of the island occupying 1/3 of the territory and the Dominican Republic is located on the right side of the island and occupies 2/3 of the territory, being the largest country of the Hispaniola island.Enciclopediaenlinea (talk) 18:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Name in French

The only official language of the Dominican Republic is the SPANISH, i do not understand that the description of the name of the nation put indicated also in French, and why not also put Chinese or German language..... I sincerely believe that English-language publishers in Wikipedia feel hispanophobia again hispanic Nations, or just they are an ignorant.Enciclopediaenlinea (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

(1) Personally, I don't have a strong feeling either way about whether it's appropriate to include the French-language version of the country's name. I have always assumed it was because the DR shares an island with a country where French is spoken (Haiti). (2) You are welcome to discuss article content here. Please do so politely, and avoid comments about other contributors. Thank you. – Wdchk (talk) 12:40, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello...to Enciclopediaeanlinea
That's not the only reason why the French pronunciation is appropriate, relevant, or there. Not just because of simply sharing the Island with French African Haiti...no. But also because French people ruled actual Dominican Republic itself or a while, and inter-mingled there as well. Not just Haiti. (The article itself mentions this fact. French rule over DR, and the influence and the mixing etc.)
It doesn't matter that "Spanish" is the only official language of DR. That wasn't the point of the French pronunciation. But simply that French were also involved in certain ways in the development of the country to begin with. The point is that the French pronunciation for the country is not some total non-sequitur like you're thinking or saying. Other languages can have pertinence depending. (It's done in articles sometimes. For example, Corsica is part of France, yet other language pronunciations are given for it, like: Corsica (/ˈkɔːsɪkə/; French: Corse, IPA: [kɔʁs]; Corsican: Corsica; Italian: Corsica; Ligurian: Corsega))
So in this matter, it's just a simple fact, mentioned in the article itself, that France was involved with DR from the beginning etc. To compare the French thing in this with "German" and "Chinese" shows ignorance, and to be frank, is silly. French ruled over DR for a while, and were actually there. Hence the relevance. No valid reason to remove the pronunciation matter. It has obvious relevance, when it's understood and remembered that French rulership and influence were there in DR also, not just Spaniard (though Spain was the main one). France was involved too. It has some significance and pertinence. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 20:55, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Actually I agree with Enciclopediaenlinea. It makes no sense to keep the French name in the lede only because they ruled DR for a few years. The Spanish crown ruled over the Netherlands for centuries, does it mean that the article Netherlands should also include the Spanish pronunciation in your opinion?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You didn't read or grasp everything. Or maybe I wasn't totally clear in everything. It went beyond also just "ruling" over DR, but the fact that the French were also involved in the actual early DEVELOPMENT of DR in the first place. Was Spain involved in Netherlands' actual formation? Nay. So your comparison is FAIL. Try grasping the (full) point of what I wrote. French were in the early development of the country...from early on. I hope it's clearer now. The actual point is that there's no valid reason to remove that (even in the lede), given the deep involvement of France with DR from the very beginning, as well as its rulership over it. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 09:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
You say they were involved in the early development in the country, so what? How is this relevant to the decision of including the French name in the lede? It's normally included if the language is official or commonly spoken, not because a third country played a minor role in its history. Try to make an actual argument for its inclusion instead of spitting venom at me.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello. Just being frank, sir. Don't exaggerate it though. If you think THAT was "spitting venom", then you don't know what real venom is, and you have a very thin skin. I was simply being blunt in pointing out that your comparison to the "Netherlands" was very weak, and that it forgot the fact that French did not simply just "rule" over DR, but were involved in its very FORMATION!!! That's not something to fluff off as of no account, or to go "so what" about. I already made "an actual argument for its inclusion", that you're rudely ignoring or not caring about for some reason. What do you think all I wrote above in general was about? The French pronunciation is pertinent for historical interest, and to make the point that French (not just Spaniards) were involved (importantly involved) in DR's formation and development. Meaning that it's NOT totally out of left field like you're wrongly implying or saying. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
This is not an article about the history of the Dominican Republic (though there is one), this is about the modern country, therefore the French name of the country should not appear in such a prominent position (if at all). Besides, during the period in which you claim the French had such an impact (which could be true but is irrelevant to this discussion) the country was not even known as 'République Dominicaine', so the historical relevance of your insertion is nil. PS: I don't know if this is how you habitually deal with other editors, but the random gratuitous bold text AND ALLCAPS is something that is nearly universally frowned upon. 'FAIL' and other similar comments are best reserved for users you're already acquainted with.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

my mistake...I didn't realize you were the same person as Underlying lk. I saw what you wrote. And that the article is not specifically about the "history" of DR. But the problem with that argument is that most readers (casual and otherwise), if they wanted to look up stuff on DR (past and present, meaning current stuff as well as its history) would generally go to the main Dominican Republic article first...and check for historical things and points there. Not sure why this is such a big deal. I'm pro-Spain...but it's a forgotten fact (even by WP users and editors) that FRANCE ALSO reigned and participated in DR's very early formation also. Not only Spain...though Spain mainly. Regards. Gabby Merger (talk) 08:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You didn't address one point: the country was never known as 'République Dominicaine' under French rule, for obvious reasons. If a casual reader interested in the history of the DR came across such an anachronism, he would just be more confused. If reminding this 'forgotten fact' is the objective, isn't it much simpler and effective to just write "the country was under French rule between year X and year Y"?--eh bien mon prince (talk) 08:15, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that point of yours. And the fact is, frankly, though it may be true, your argument in that is flawed. And it's a wrong assumption. Because while the country may not have been known as République Dominicaine WHILE FRANCE RULED over it...that's the name it definitely was known by in French not much later. It's not the main point necessarily that it wasn't known in French while French ruled there. But as a general point about French connections with it. Again, it's the point about French involvement in DRs early development and formation. Gabby Merger (talk) 22:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
I opened a dispute resolution request here about this matter.--eh bien mon prince (talk) 03:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
The dispute was resolved "against inclusion of French rendering unless a reliable source can be provided which shows that it was used as a significant historical name actually used for the nation".--eh bien mon prince (talk) 09:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

no decision was actually made. The discussion was simply closed arbitrarily, with my last comment never responded to you by you. Just because you and that other editor (not many people if you notice) want to dogmatically say "French pronunciation should not be mentioned", and just because you want to water down the French involvement in DR's formation, etc, does not mean the discussion was completely over.

You never answered my last thing...which was:

^^^^^^Just to address the point you made above about the years of French rule being "long after" DR's formation. The formation and development is not just referring to the very very start and infancy and fledglingness of DR. It took TIME for DR to fully develop. You're gonna say that in the 1700's DR was 100% formed and settled as a nation, in complete form? I guess though it's a matter of interpretation. But it's not like French ruled over DR from 1899 to 1922 or something. (For example). That would be different. But it was much earlier than that. (Also, it's not like DR has been around for 2000 years or something...or even 1000.) But French involvement was somewhat early on. During arguably DR's overall formation. Otherwise why would the article have the "French rule" thing SO EARLY in the article?^^^^^

You never answered that. So I'll ask it again.... French involvement was somewhat early on. During arguably DR's overall formation. Otherwise why would the article have the "French rule" thing SO EARLY in the article? Gabby Merger (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

it remains closed now. Fine. I won't pursue this nonsense. I leave it alone. As TransporterMan's big issue and hang-up was "if you don't provide reliable source for that pronunciation" then so forth....but the problem is that last point was un-answered...and discussion was closed prematurely... it's whatever though.
I'm not pursuing this thing anymore. It's too trivial overall. It just seems that French dominance and involvement in DR's very formation seem to be under-played and watered down too much by certain parties. And Wikipedia should not be that way, when it comes to historical facts and points. That's all I was saying really. The pronunciation issue is debatable admittedly, but made its point in a way. Obviously France had the pronunciation from way back, and its pertinent (arguably) to the point (factual and historical point) that France was also involved in DR's very existence, formation, and development, and culture.
But even so, instead of dodging my last point and question, why not address it? The last thing I wrote was in RESPONSE to what YOU wrote just before that, about "French rule and involvement" supposedly coming much later, etc. If that's the case, why is the whole "French rule" matter brought up so early in the article? Instead of evading that point (which really refutes your claim that it was so much later etc) why not address it? That's all I was saying.
You still can't deal with the fact that French involvement is mentioned so early in the article...which goes against your contention that it was some late trivial occurrence. You brought it up in that discussion page, I merely addressed and answered it, and you keep evading the point. If the French rule was so "late" as you imply or say, then why does the article have it as an early-on matter? Gabby Merger (talk) 04:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

More on the D.R ethnicity 2

I have found a website that could be put here for consideration, where it puts the ethnic makeup at 15% Taino origin, 15% Euro-Asian origin, and 70% African origin, this should be put in the article, what do you think ? [16]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.196.107 (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I did that already when that report came out (see "New edit in Demographics section" above). RegardsUlises (talk) 21:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)Ulises


________________________RESPONSE:

Because that is inaccurate information 70%african NOT LIKELY. FALSE INFORMATION. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katelynn123 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion to insert video about Dominican Republic

I would like to recommend embedding a video with the stunning sights of Dominican Republic. Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8gD_9WPPFb4 Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.88.30.153 (talk) 04:15, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Tourism in the Dominican Republic

Hi! It would be great if you could create this article: Tourism in the Dominican Republic!

Perhaps you can draw some inspiration from Tourism in Brazil. :) Thanks & all the best, Horst-schlaemma (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2014 (UTC)

George Bush

Why is there a George Bush II image on a page about the Dominican Republic?
People visiting here to see images of the Dominican Republic are confronted by the features of a previous president of a remote country.
His image also resides on pages for Bahrain, Gabon, Ghana, Kenya, Latvia, Mali, Nigeria and Romania.
George Bush Jnr admirers, please place his image on his page only. B. Fairbairn (talk) 13:30, 12 June 2014 (UTC)


Foreign private debt

What does it mean "The Dominican Republic is current on foreign private debt"?It is nessecary to provide this info to the readers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.Erfolg (talk • contribs) 14:55, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

"Dominicans"

The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see talk:Dominican people (Dominican Republic) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

"The" DR?

Is there a standard policy of "the Dominican Republic" vs "Dominican Republic."? I see both throughout the article. Looking for guidance. I've had people get into fights about this in the past, even become offended if "the" is included, so hoping to resolve this. Skyfire24x (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2015 (UTC)Sam

How was the island/country formed geologically?

Could someone add the geologic formation process/orogeny (volcanic, fold, etc.) of the country and/or of the Hispaniola island? It seems difficult to find how the island and/or mountains were created.

I've looked on the pages for Hispaniola, the Greater Antilles, Pico Duarte, and Cordillera Central, Dominican Republic and can't seem to find much information on the topic. This website seems to have some information: http://specialpapers.gsapubs.org/content/262/1.abstract

Bush6984 (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

"Dominicans"

The usage and primary topic of Dominicans is under discussion, see talk:People of the Dominican Republic -- 67.70.32.190 (talk) 11:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 11 external links on Dominican Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Most correct. Couple of redirects now substituted with correct archived version. Thanks! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 05:23, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Removing the subsection about genetics and the population

I have removed the subsection about genetics because problems with the sources. The first sentence claimed to cite a 2015 DNA study, but there was no citation or link to it. In fact, the entire subsection had only two references, one broken and dubious, and the other irrelevant.

Commercial data: DNA Tribes WP:QS Questionable Source

  • The first citation was not to a source, but to a picture in Photobucket with a dead link: (Template:Http://i424.photobucket.com/albums/pp323/cristiano3/DNA-4.jpg). I suppose, however, that the user meant to lead readers to this page instead. Indeed, the user has posted a similar link in several forums of discussion, for example in Yahoo Answers. This same user appears to have intervened in some heated online discussions about race in the DR using the data at the end of this link and supporting his/her arguments with a significant number of pictures. Examples of the user’s involvements in debates are here, here, and here.
In the album at the end of the link, the one that professes to serve as a source, the reader will find a few other pictures with graphs and statistics, all provided by a company that markets race-based biotechnologies: DNA Tribes simply as commercial ads. In other words, these graphs are the same as any other commercial.
Moreover, none of the company’s publications had been peer-reviewed nor are they uncontested. The company claims that a single person has compiled its DNA data of the world and that it is unique, differing from other databases. In other words, it cannot be replicated. Most importantly, the information this company offers is to produce profits by selling DNA information only at the individual level. They have never claimed to make an accurate DNA country profile. They display these tables as models, but a very faulty one, according to critics. Look at some of the critics: Ayers, Wagner, and Roberts. Thus, this source does not pass WP's test for sources: WP:VERIFY.

Peer-Review WP:PRIMARY Irrelevant sources

  • The other source cited was a 2010 study published in a peer-review journal: PNAS. The link, however, led to a part of the study’s data ([Supporting Information) without reference to the authors’ explanation of the data, which is found here. The problem with using this source is that the study here is not of the Dominican Republic, nor the researchers flew to the island to take a reasonable number of DNA samples, but they chose from Latino immigrants in the US: “samples from United States–based Latino communities.” The object of this study was never to produce an accurate picture of the Dominican DNA, but to include and better understand the Latino population in the US, not in the Dominican Republic. They do not say how many Latinos of Dominican origin they sampled, but they were a very small number since they looked “among 100 individuals with ancestry from Ecuador, Colombia, Puerto Rico, and the Dominican Republic.” So, not only was this study NOT to produce a DNA picture of the DR, but they were far from being representative of the DR.
  • A similar peer-reviewed publication documented a study (not cited in the subsection) also done among Latino immigrants in South Florida. But with the exception of a group of indigenous in Venezuela, the researchers limited their study to the US. They never conducted research on the islands. Their numbers were also far from being representative of the Dominican population, and nor was their study meant to show a DNA map of the DR (they extrapolated into other possibilities, but never made that claim).

I invite questions, comments and arguments here. I also welcome to move this discussion to the WP sources forum where we could receive input from other experienced editors.

My belief is that not until there is a peer-review publication claiming to have mapped the Dominican DNA should this article have a section about the DNA composition of the DR.--Caballero/Historiador (talk) 22:17, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

On December 31, 2015, user: Iñaki Salazar reverted the changes without an explanation. As I did 12 days ago, I invite all users concerned with this subject to discuss the changes here. As it should be evident by my explanations above, I did not delete the subsection in genetics carelessly or without concern for the work of previous editors. Rather, it was the result of several days of research and reflection. And the process I followed, was within the WP guidelines. Instead of inviting an edit war, I suggest conversation. Caballero//Historiador ☊ 14:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
On Sunday January 17 user Yodanyrd reinserted comments about genetics in the DR confounding the management of migratory data with "genealogical DNA testing." I removed them based on reasons similar to the previous cases. The user cited a table in a Google Drive, which is unacceptable as a source. The other source is a statistical study of migration (here). To cite this study in the DR WP article in an attempt to describe the country's genotype (moniker for racial) is to purposely mislead or to show a lack of experience (WP:CIR) in reading scientific work in this area. I suspect that those adamant about including genetic data in this article ignore its racists implications, which in the Dominican context go back to the old game (institutionalized by the Trujillato) of claiming that the DR is more European than... (look at how the numbers in the European category keep rising even when experts continue to warn us about the tendency to inflate them and to deflate those from Africa). This practice of using genetic data (in this case is more migratory data) to classify groups of population, is part of what Keith C. Cheng and others have called the "new racism" (here and here, also).
The study that user Yodanyrd cited is an original research that suggests the use of a haplotype-based identification approach for "reading" migratory/genetic data already collected from various sources, which have already been studied in other forms. It is NOT about the Dominican Republic. In fact, it is a highly experimental study in the use of statistics in migratory data with potential applications for genetic visualizations, particularly focused, not in creating a genetic map of the Dominican Republic, but on identifying "source" populations in Europe and Africa. It relies on previous select studies (databases), which cannot represent any nation, but in speculative terms. The closest it comes in reading "Dominican genes" (as if there is any) is when it employs data from "various putatively admixed American and Caribbean populations." There is no mention of the people studied because they are doing no new genetic-based study. The authors, therefore, never claim to have done research on the island, no explanation of DNA genealogical testing on any Dominican individual, much less in sampling the Dominican population. The author carefully worded their conclusion to avoid misunderstanding, saying that they only offer "insights into the genetic make-up of American populations." By Wikipedia standards (WP:RS), which favor reviews of established body of works (WP:MEDRS) (WP:SCIRS), this source cannot be employed to support evidence of the Dominican genotypes. Moreover, the use of genetic studies, and in the case of the article cited, migratory data, is for research purposes only, in fact, for very narrow areas of scholarship (i.e., epidemiology, health care), and not for a country's encyclopedia article in a section that purports to explain the racial makeup of a given country. We have been warned, many times, not to use data of this kind to explain race (see here, here). So, again, there is yet no place in this specific WP article for genetic commentaries nor racial speculations. If you think differently, please, write about it here, rather than engage in disruptive editing. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 03:31, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Currency section

The currency section is literally a written list of data points of the Dominican Peso vs USD. This information would be better conveyed by a graph. And the prose could say something about the currency itself, like its history, appearance, backing, etc.Cowlicks (talk) 14:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cowlicks: Would love to see what can you come up with. It is not my area, but let me see how could I help. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 19:25, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dominican Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:44, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Demonym

Hello. While reading the wiki about the Dominican Republic, I noticed a problem with the demonym. "Dominican" is also the demonym of the sovereign state of Dominica, in the Lesser Antilles. So, I guess, one of the two demonyms should change. I do not often edit Wikipedia, so I reuest someone should fix this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.55.62.240 (talk) 13:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dominican Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Dominican Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dominican Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:01, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

At present, the Dominican Republic is one of only four nations worldwide (along with the Central African Republic, the Czech Republic, and the United Arab Emirates) with only a demonym-based adjectival name.[33]

this is incorrect the Czech Republic has adopted a short form name Czechia. I tried to change it but people seem to change it back 97.127.101.92 (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

" Independence came 22 years later after victory in the Dominican War of Independence against Haitian rule in 1844. Over the next 72 years the Dominican Republic experienced mostly internal strife and a brief return to colonial status, the only nation in the hemisphere to do so after gaining its independence, before permanently ousting Spanish rule during the Dominican War of Restoration of 1865.[15][16][17]" - since 1844 and 1865 are about 22 years apart, not 72, I'm going to presume a typo and correct the 72 to 22. (If 72 was intended, the phrase is very poorly placed and sentence needs to be reworked) Irish Melkite (talk) 10:49, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


Between 1911 and 1916 the DR had 6 presidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.0.96.71 (talk) 21:43, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Dominican Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:05, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Human rights in the Dominican Republic

Hello there! I'm interested in starting a new section on human rights in the country, as I notice that there currently isn't one. As I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia pages I wondered if anyone would have any input or advice on doing this, or if anyone is staunchly opposed to the idea. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adman1234 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

2016 Dominican Genographic Study results announced

This is a project conducted by University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia in collaboration with the Dominican Academy of History and the Universidad Iberoamericana. Results were announced about two hours ago and I am trying to contact the researchers mentioned in the link to see if the official results will be released to the public; so far I was able to find this report from Dominican newspaper Diario Libre which indicates that Dominicans DNA is 49% African, 39% European and about 4% pre-columbian. I will keep tracking the results of this investigation and see it if merits inclusion in the main article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ujorge (talk • contribs) 02:32, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ujorge: I added it on 01:21, 8 July 2016. Although, User @Jpimentel201 has removed it for 5 times, they allege that it is biased, because it has had a different outcome than "other studies" and that it is highly questionable. Nika de Hitch (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

@Ujorge About Dominican DNA: .. I've made several attempts to remove the new addition in reference to a dna portion made about Dominicans in the DR page, only for it to be re-added. The reason I've made several attempts to erase it, is because of the bias info which contradicts findings from several other DNA studies. This study was conducted on 1,000 people in certain towns in a few provinces within the DR with predominant afro influence. Studies done on 1,000 Dominican citizens from these towns do not represent the entire population of 10,000,000.

Here is some examples of other DNA studies done in DR with some links:

In the Last 2010 Dominican Census, Dominican marked themselves as follow...

59% Other(Mixes) 28% White 12% Black

According to C.I.A. Fact Book estimates Dominicans are:

73% Mix Tri-racial(Spanish ,Afro ,Native) 16% White( Spanish/Other European) 11% Black

According to recent genealogical tests by DNA-Tribe the average Mix Dominican is estimated to be:

58.1 % Spanish European 35.2% African 6.4% Taino Indio

http://i424.photobucket.com/albums/pp323/cristiano3/DNA-4.jpg

According to 23andMe DNA test, Mix Dominicans are estimated to be:

60% European 35% African 5% Taino Indian

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?authkey=CL2T54EF&hl=en_US&key=0At1sp4m_NTCLdHB4a2FZYXRxZnh0UzRfbzlTV2lXSWc&type=view&gid=0&f=true&sortcolid=-1&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=250

According to PLOS Genetic the average Mix Dominican is:

57% Spanish European 38% Afro 5 % Native

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pgen.1003925

According to "History Of The Caribbean" book Pg. 34 written by Franklin W. Knight a extremely important Historian of the slavery in the Caribbean inform that by 1750 Dominicans were:

38,000 Whites 30,000 Mixed 15,000 Slaves

My point, is that DNA shouldn't even be used in this Wikipedia page about DR, because of all the conflicting findings and opinions. This is very divisive within our community and alienates a large portion of the population. Please remove this info, because it isn't a fact. Thank you very much. Jpimentel201 (talk) 03:32, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

@Jpimentel201: Your claim that in the 2010 census Dominicans "marked themselves" as "59% Other(Mixes), 28% White and 12% Black" is simply not true. Is not me saying that is the Oficina Nacional De Estadísticas, an entity of the Dominican Government which in 2012 published a report entitled "La variable étnico racial en los censos de la población de la República Dominicana" (I can't link to that document, but if you google that title you will get a copy of it from ONE). On page 22 of this report, in the third paragraph it is stated that there was no attempt to identify ethnic groups in the 2002 and 2010 census. Again, this is an official document of the Dominican government saying this. According to this report, the last time that there was an attempt to collect information about race was with the 1960 census (see page 17). Your quote of "History of the Caribbean" from 1750 is only relevant if you assume that there have been no immigration to our country since those times. We KNOW that is not the case: we had immigrants from Haiti, the West Indies, Lebanon and Syria and other regions. So your sources are wrong and until you are able to come up with better ones you should abstain from trying to replace information on this page out of respect for its readers. The results of the Genographic study I called attention to is the only one we have as of now. It's a summary, as the main report has not been released to the public yet. If and went it comes out we'll have more information about the methodology they used, which in my opinion seems to be solid since they went around the country. --Ulises (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the DR is largely known for trying to emphasize the European and Native influence rather the dominant African influence. I think this is a more accurate genetic make up of the Dominican genome. 1,000 individuals is the highest number of individuals tested genetically in the Dominican Republic. Also the regions conducted in the study is very accurate to as it is taken from 65% of the urban regions of the Dominican Republic and 35% from the rural which is literally how the population of DR is (65% urban and 35% rural). You saying that this 2016 Dominican genetic study is inaccurate makes me question if you are a troll trying to keep the DR myth of being more European than African like many other Dominican users on here before putting very small scale genetic studies as to make it seem like those studies that you labeled are the real deal when in fact this 2016 Dominican genetic study is the biggest and largest scale done in the Dominican Republic by officials, unlike those that you labeled which are only by a certain small number of Dominicans who participate on it and coincidentally are from the middle and high class regions of Santiago (the whitest city of the Dominican Republic) and Santo Domingo (minority from here). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:584:C001:1360:B52D:5DB:F0F4:3D3C (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

  • Those expressing dissatisfaction with the inclusion of this material in the article are correct. According to Wikipedia guidelines (WP:RS), we don't use breaking news about studies or new ideas on issues as material for the article. No matter how we go around this subject, the attempt to ascribe a genetic number and classification to Dominican people is experimental, closer to speculation than to a fact. I have written at length here, where I presented arguments against including a genetic section in this article. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 00:46, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dominican Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Dominicans of Haitian descent

What is the thing to erase the struggle of Dominicans of Haitian descent? The literature is abundant: here, here, and here. On the news, here, here, and here. You might argue that people of Haitian descent who have been denied Dominican citizenship are thus not Dominican citizens, but that is not my concern here. I am talking about people of Haitians descent who are documented Dominican citizens who are caught in the midst of the anti-Haitian movement too. Rosario (talk) 12:56, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Will weight in because I am also interested in the topic. The change proposed here and here is from, "Dominicans of Haitian descent" to "descendants of Haitians." The rationales presented for the change are the following: 1) The phrase "Dominicans of Haitian descent" is misleading since many people of Haitian descent born in the DR are not Dominican citizens), 2) "the result and really the point of the 2013 decree was to put the category "Dominicans of Haitian descent" into question."
It is obvious that the Dominican government's attempts have been to challenge the rights of citizenship of people of Haitian ancestry born in the DR who don't hold the proper documentation. These are the ones who cannot prove their citizenship in the ways dictated under the current system. And these are the ones who are most talked about in the news, and apparently, the ones who are the focus of editors proposing the change of words here.
In my opinion, this is indeed a debatable issue. Those in the news and literature who insist in calling all the children of Haitians born in the DR, "Dominican citizens" are challenging the DR government's new definition of citizens. If you think that only the government has the right to define citizenship you may be inclined to think that the change in wording proposed here just recently is legitimate. However, there is a long tradition that deviates from the erratic, but categorical definition which nation-states attempt to impose on people. Just to mention one, Cohen. I think that given this tradition, which is not a fringe theory, there should be space in this article for showing how people of Haitian descent born in the DR should be called "Dominicans" too. Yet, my argument against the recently proposed wording is not based on this. I concede that this is a controversial issue, and prefer to side step it. Instead, these are my two arguments against it:
First, it assumes that the children of Haitian migrants born in the DR are automatically Haitian citizens. While it is true that the Haitian Constitution has since 1816 offered citizenship to children of Haitians born in foreign countries, it is not a default citizenship. The person needs to want it and request it, either through a formal application from overseas or by moving/immigrating to Haiti. So, it is not a default condition. By wording the sentence in this way Wikipedia would be saying that children of Haitians born in the DR are Haitian citizens even before the fact. And that is not true nor correct.
Second, the recently proposed change leaves out those Dominicans of Haitians descent who are also documented Dominican citizens. The conflicts dealing with Haitian migration reach them too, and the country struggles with their inclusion too (i.e., for example). In other words, I am talking about two groups of people of Haitians descent born in the DR. One of them does not have official Dominican citizenship. The other does. And the nation struggles to include them both, albeit sometimes in different ways (see reference above).
I propose a wording that should satisfy both positions: the ones who abide by the strict definition of citizenship from the Dominican government and the ones who think that documented Dominicans of Haitian descent should not be ignored.
This is the way the sentence currently stands: "Mass illegal Haitian immigration and the integration of Dominicans of Haitian descent are major issues."
This is how I suggest we rewrite it: "Mass illegal Haitian immigration and the integration of both, Dominicans of Haitian descent and the children of Haitian migrants are major issues." Please, share your thoughts. Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 15:27, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
""What is the thing to erase the struggle of Dominicans of Haitian descent?" I don't see much evidence of such a "thing"; or do you want to revert to previous versions of this article where Haitian nationals working in the DR are routinely referred to as "illegal" in favor of--what? presumably "real" Dominicans of Haitian descent? Especially as *official government policies* have been put in place seeming precisely to erase that distinction. If in 2016 there are difficulties in writing a concise and inclusive distinction between Haitian nationals and Dominican citizens of Haitian descent in an article on the Dominican Republic, please put the blame where it belongs, on the recent and ongoing policies of the Dominican government. I can understand how the evolving article can have difficulties. Note e.g. that the current phrasing "the integration of Dominicans of Haitian descent are major issues" defines the "problem" as those of Haitian descent, that is, the "problem" to solve is deemed their inability to integrate, rather than actual social and now legal bars to such integration.
But I think (I hope) that the disagreement here is based on difficulties in logical categorization arising from the in many ways internationally unprecedented decree of 2013.
I propose the following change:
Replace "Mass illegal Haitian immigration and the integration of Dominicans of Haitian descent are major issues."
with "Recent changes to the legal status of people of Haitian descent, including not only immigrant Haitian nationals but those with long-recognized Dominican citizenship, are major issues."
Note: This was composed before subsequent additions to this page by User_talk:Caballero1967 but i still stand by my proposal. Doprendek (talk) 16:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with the sentence "Recent changes to the legal status of people of Haitian descent, including not only immigrant Haitian nationals but those with long-recognized Dominican citizenship, are major issues.", because it is excluding non-immigrants (i.e., people born on Dominican soil) that are not Dominican citizens; the phrase "descendants of Haitians" includes both those persons of Haitian descent who are Dominican citizens and those who are not citizens (and therefore aren't Dominicans).
The issue with the Constitutional Court rule is that many people don't get that the Court did not retroactively striped the Dominican citizenship to people as it is falsely claimed next in the section §2013 'Dominican blood' decree (it is so bogus that it even calls a decree, a law made by the Executive, what was actually a (landmark) ruling, an interpretation of already existing laws), but that it confirmed that the citizenship is not automatically given unrestrictedly to all people born on national soil since the 1929 Dominican Republic Constitution was enacted on 20 June 1929. The children of Haitians that were either illegal or temporary workers, never qualified to obtain a Cédula de Identidad y Electoral legally (only for a Cédula de Identidad if they legalized their status), their parents had to be either legal residents or citizens. Nika de Hitch (talk) 06:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
@Nika de Hitch: Thanks for joining the discussion. You may skip the reasoning that follows and proceed to the suggestion at the bottom (*).
Let me see if I understand your challenge to Doprendek's suggested line: it does not include people born in the DR who are nevertheless not Dominican nationals because according to the momentous Court ruling children of undocumented Haitians (some are non-nationals themselves) are not naturally citizens. Is this it?
If so, you definitely cannot be talking about them since they are already covered and referred to in Doprendek's suggestion. Here is the line:
"Recent changes to the legal status of people of Haitian descent, including not only immigrant Haitian nationals but those with long-recognized Dominican citizenship, are major issues."
Which individuals are referred to here? Answer: All people of Haitian descent in the DR. The line includes illegal and legal Haitian nationals and their children born in the DR who currently reside in the DR but without a defined citizenship, which are the people to whom you are making reference. They are all of Haitian descent too, aren't they?
In fact, Doprendek's line includes at least four types of people, and all are of Haitian descent: illegal immigrants, legal immigrants, children of immigrants, and Dominicans of Haitian ancestry. Again, the people whom you claim the sentence ignores, are in fact included. They are not highlighted, but they are still there.
Admittedly, the sentence further takes the pain to underline this last group: individuals who are officially Dominican citizens but of Haitian descent and who are part of the equation, of the "major issues."
My original quibble with Iñaki Salazar's edits (here), which you are supporting (here), is that they removed the word "Dominicans" and thus excluded this last group from the picture. They are, in fact, part of the major issues, as the links that I offered above explain.
(*)Yet, you are correct in suggesting that we should focus on the people whom the Court had in mind at the moment of its decision. I propose, then, a modified version of Doprendek's line aimed to satisfy your concern and mine.
"Recent changes to the legal status of children of Haitian immigrants have become a major national quagmire affecting even those with a long-recognized Dominican citizenship."
This sentence is more accurate. With it, we would center the attention first on the children born in the DR, which are whom the Court targeted with its historic ruling. We would also acknowledge the national proportions of the resulting predicament by pointing out the extent of its unintended reach: a group of Dominicans impacted by the tides provoked by the decree. What do you think? Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 15:27, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Caballero1967, Why do you keep calling the court ruling a "decree"? I don't mean to nitpick, but it's confusing to those who are reading this interesting exchange. A decree and a court ruling are not the same thing and there are significant differences between one and the other.Ulises (talk) 16:34, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Again, if after a couple of days there is no more responses to my last suggestion here I will consider it as accepted by consensus (WP:SILENT). Caballero/Historiador ⎌ 15:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Christopher Colombus did NOT start the first permanent European settlement, as this post claims

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Erikson Research done in the early 1960s by Norwegian explorer Helge Ingstad and his wife, archaeologist Anne Stine Ingstad, identified a Norse settlement located at the northern tip of Newfoundland. It has been suggested that this site, known as L'Anse aux Meadows, is Leif's settlement of Leifsbúðir. The Ingstads demonstrated that Norsemen had reached America about 500 years before Christopher Columbus.[30][Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).31] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leif_Erikson — Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.166.226.124 (talk • contribs) 18:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

The article states "site of the first permanent European settlement" - note the emphasis added on the word "permanent". It does not state the first European settlement. By all accounts, the archaeological site at L'Anse aux Meadows was only occupied for a brief period around 1000 CE - the exact duration of the settlement is still unclear - that fact in itself makes clear that the site would not compete for the first permanent settlement. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:42, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

errors

section Foreign relations "The Dominican Republic is a regular member of the Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie." simply is not true, but an observer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.52.177.182 (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 March 2017

Please change the HDI from 0.715 to 0.722 and the rank from 101st to 99th because that information is old since the new Human Development Report came out today. </ref>http://hdr.undp.org/sites/default/files/2016_human_development_report.pdf Santiaguero95 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. RivertorchFIREWATER 02:45, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dominican Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:05, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Can someone add a photo of Trujillo?

I glanced over this article and my eye was drawn to the portraits of former rulers and historic figures. I noticed the sections "Trujillo age" and "Post-Trujillo era" and was surprised to see no photo or portrait. Could someone with better Wiki skills than I add an image? DBlomgren (talk) 21:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

 Done. It's not a very sharp image, but we take what we can get. I think some of the other images may need a little reshuffling to be in proper chronological order, but I may not get to that immediately. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:10, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! DBlomgren (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dominican Republic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Is the Dominican Republic truly a Republic?

It seems strange to me that this article, while discussing changes of leadership, does not explicitly describe the current form of government. Netmouse (talk) 12:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

On the Ethnic Group tab on the Sidebar

In the Ethnic Group tab on the Sidebar are included 4 classifications: Mestizo, White, Black and Yellow. What's given as a reference for these particular groups is the Census from 1960, however when looking up said census on the Dominican National Statistics Office one will come across this page (https://www.one.gob.do/censos/poblacion-y-vivienda/censo-1960) in which there's 2 documents given one is an Excel Document and the other is a compressed archives document. The .rar link for downloading is currently down. However the .xlsx is currently available (direct link to download it here: https://www.one.gob.do/Multimedia/Download?ObjId=2737) and on it on the "Cuadro 6" section which is the corresponding section on race the categories used are (In order of most to least people): Mulato, White, Black and Yellow. Looking up newer censuses I can't seem to find any sections on race or ethnicity/ethnic group so, wouldn't it make more sense to edit so that it aligns itself with the categories actually set out by the Dominican National Statistics Office on the last census in which this was taken statistics of?, meaning that I personally think it'd be more accurate if the Mestizo category put in this sidebar was edited to Mulato instead? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patja89 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Slavery

Recently we have had some very minor stats added about slavery to a few main country articles like this one (as seen below). Most have been removed by others on the grounds of WP:UNDUE when the country does not have a rights probelms. I personally agree with this and removed it here and joined the talk on the users page who's adding this all over. But since this is the first place a second editor restored it....I will start a talk. Not sure a Stat of this nature with a margin of error greater then the actual number because it's so small needs to be here. If this was a country with human rights problems I could see why it would be included...but just not sure here.....so asking for imput.--Moxy (talk) 01:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)


First, you boldly removed sourced content without discussion on this talk page and I reverted your removal. Suggested practice is the boldly edit, revert and discuss cycle, so I would say you started the edit-warring: but two to tango and all that.
I disagree emphatically with removing this well-sourced and important material. The Global Slavery Index page on the Dominican Republic is footnoted with data from the United States Department of State, the World Bank, the Human Rights Watch, the Human Rights Council Working Group of the UN General Assembly, and the International Organisation for Migration, among other reliable sources. I don't know where you got the information that there's "a margin of error greater then the actual number", but one per cent of the population is a huge proportion; for comparison, one per cent of the US population would be about 3,260,000 persons, hardly an unsubstantial number.
In an article of this length, I don't think a short paragraph alluding to a real and noteworthy societal problem in the Dominican Republic is undue weight at all. Carlstak (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
I don't think that it is well sourced, as is. The current reference is based on the mentioned report, but doesn't actually reference it when using the numbers. The named report has a definition for the term "modern slavery", and hints at the methodology used. The sentence in on this wiki should probably be rewritten. "...modern day Dominican Republic" seems to have an unnecessary modifier, and "enslaved" deserves a definition. Louis Waweru  Talk  05:47, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Agree... one of many reasons the bold additions have been removed on multiple articles. As per WP:advocacy.--Moxy (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
Your link doesn't work Louis Waweru, it's one character off, which explains why I couldn't access the pdf and got an "access denied" error page; it has an unneeded pipe, and if you don't mind I'm removing it now so the link works. Perhaps I'm missing something, but the full report lists the Dominican Republic as ranking eighth with Haiti in Table 1, with estimated percent of population in modern slavery given as 0.995 and estimated number in modern slavery as 104,800, as well as being listed in tables 2 and 3. The descriptive "modern" is used to clarify that historical numbers from the country's past are not included. The wholesale removal of this content across however many articles has the whiff of censorship of unpleasant facts.Carlstak (talk) 23:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
It's about undue weight ....in the same manner we dont list stats for drug addicts or the homeless or how many women get raped in a year.....all of which have much higher numbers then slavery. pls join the main talk at User talk:Ashy Waves#Edit warring at Poland and other articles.USER BANNED no point in the talk--Moxy (talk) 13:59, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I wouldn't have joined in anyway; the goings-on at the recalcitrant editor's talk page with its endless discussion and mind-numbing walls of text is something I avoid like the plague. Carlstak (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
We are just lucky we stooped the huge slave edits here as they where just starting on this article when people noticed the problem all over. Not sure how slavery is justified a mention here with so many other social problems and with a source that has a margin of error larger then the number given.....but will let others decide if the Dominican Republic is famous for its slavery in todays modern state.--Moxy (talk) 15:21, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
I get the points you're making; I just feel personally that information about the human trafficking problem is a special case to be distinguished from stats on drug addiction, homelessness, or rape. May I also point out that the problem is considered notable enough that Wikipedia has had an article about this very subject since 2011, see Human trafficking in the Dominican Republic. Carlstak (talk) 16:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The GDP section has to be updated.

The GDP section shows stats from 2017. All we have to do is click on the source to see the 2018 stats. So, a new source does not have to be provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:18C:D07F:F0C1:B0A5:A2B6:D89B:1B55 (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 July 2018

Please change the nominal GDP from $76.850 billion to $81.65 billion and the nominal per capita GDP from $7,543 to $7,932.22. Also change the GDP PPP from $174.180 billion to $186.983 billion and the GDP per capita PPP from $17,096 to $18,164.46. The reason for this request is that the old numbers are from last year and these new numbers are from this year. The source is the same. So I don't need to provide a source. Santiaguero95 (talk) 22:35, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you provide a link to the new source (I am having difficulty finding it on the IMF website). --Danski454 (talk) 13:19, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
Found it. --Danski454 (talk) 13:21, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 Done --Danski454 (talk) 13:32, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Edit request under Culture Under culture where it refers to sport please add Vladimir Guerrero to the list of Baseball Hall of Fame members from the Dominican Republic, he was inducted this year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.185.1.183 (talk) 05:45, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 August 2018

Please change the origin percentage section to 75% Multi Racial or Tri Racial its been like this for decades and my people are still Multi racial NOT MULATO please also mulato is a disrespectful word our wikipedia has been hacked if u can help please fix this. 179.53.89.131 (talk) 04:09, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. L293D (☎ • ✎) 21:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2018

in the origin section of our page it says Mulatto 73% that is a lie Dominicans are Tri Racial Multi Racial Not mulatto! that is disrespectful and i will get to the bottom of this cause Dominican Republic page has been hacked! Kate2020 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2018

in a study done by the Unniversaty of UASD in Dominican republic out of 10 million people in DR only 4.5 million are of Dominican origin, out of that DNA testing that was done as of 2014 to now august 2018 Dominicans are 73% Tri Racial, 16% White, 10% African, 1%Asian. mulato is a OFFENSIVE WORD used back in the day to speak badly of bi racial people and while there are bi racial people in DR that does NOT NEED ITS OWN CATEGORY, that should also call in the mixed tri racial category as it always has before. someone keeps editing the article to put this word mulato to belittle the article of this country. if someone can help me i will lock this article and pay to keep it locked because the ethnic information is wrong very wrong. MULATO IS DISRESPECTFUL WORD AND IS INACCURATE AND DOES NOT NEED ITS OWN CATEGORY! Dominicans are MOSTLY TRI-RACIAL PEOPLE! Kate2020 (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see anything close to that as a category. Dolotta (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

1844 + 72 does not equal 1865

"the newly independent Dominicans were forcefully annexed by Haiti in February 1822. Independence came 22 years later after victory in the Dominican War of Independence in 1844. Over the next 72 years the Dominican Republic experienced mostly internal conflicts and a brief return to colonial status (but Spain had not come to take away its independence) before permanently ousting Spanish rule during the Dominican War of Restoration of 1863–1865 - if the intent is to claim that conflicts and a return to colonial status continued until the US occupation that began in 1916, then 72 years is appropriate BUT that is not what the sentence says. It clearly says that conflicts and a return to colonial status continued until Spanish rule was ousted in 1865 - which is 21 years after 1844. So, which is it??? Irish Melkite (talk) 10:09, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

"Unification of Hispaniola"

The island was never willingly united politically, many people like to believe that Haitians helped free Dominicans from Spain but thats false. Santo Domingo was already independent from Spain months before Haiti invaded and occupied for personal imperial gain, not to actually help and unify the people like many believe, Haiti just wanted more control over more land and so they militarily invaded by force and without Dominican agreement, it was a military takeover not a friendly unification. Secondly, the 2 were never same culturally, and people from Santo Domingo never seen themselves as the same as Haitians. People like to use the geography factor that the 2 are on the same island, to pin 2 entirely different cultures together. So this name is misleading, it should be called "Haitian occupation of Santo Domingo". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.143.199.165 (talk) 17:53, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

THE HATIAN INVASION IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC THE TRUE HISTORY PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO CHANGE.

someone has merged the Hatian invasion article with another article for no reason. This person is making light to a massacre of thousands of Dominican men women and CHILDREN with a convenient title they placed such as : of a unification of hispanola`. THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNIFICATION OF ISLANDS Dominican Republic was INVADED by haiti and there hatian people forced enslaved and KILLED thousands of Dominicans and also had racism, hatred against white hispanics. PLEASE unmerge the two articles the unification of hispanola is a disrespectful title for such a horrible INVASION and MURDERS of Dominican people at that time. This was also done and merged by a anti Dominican editor,admin and the two articles were already made seperately please unmerge them and place the original article which was the Hatian INVASION IN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC!190.166.157.141 (talk) 14:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

/* THE HATIAN INVASION IN THE DOMINICAN REPUBLIC THE TRUE HISTORY PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO CHANGE. */

someone has merged the Hatian invasion article with another article for no reason. This person is making light to a massacre of thousands of Dominican men women and CHILDREN with a convenient title they placed such as : of a unification of hispanola`. THERE WAS NEVER ANY UNIFICATION OF ISLANDS Dominican Republic was INVADED by haiti and there hatian people forced enslaved and KILLED thousands of Dominicans and also had racism, hatred against white hispanics. PLEASE unmerge the two articles the unification of hispanola is a disrespectful title for such a horrible INVASION and MURDERS of Dominican people at that time and the two articles were made seperately please unmerge them and place the original article which was the Hatian INVASION IN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC! the eprson who merged these two articles was anti DOMINICAN and ruining historical facts that were already placed on the original article! which was THE HATIAN INVASION IN DOMINICAN REPUBLIC NOT THE UNIFICATION OF HISPANOLA that was never a historical fact please unmerge the articles and place the hatian invasion back where it was in the main article of the country190.166.157.141 (talk) 15:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The country's area is wrong

The country's area is not 78,315 square kilometers, but 48,442; the larger number appears to be the area of the whole island (including Haiti). Please see this link from the Dominican Embassy in the U.S. with the correct area information: http://drembassyusa.org/geography/

@Ujorge: Addressed. ChrisTakey (talk) 15:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

can you please unmerge the two articles that were merged by someone making fun of Dominican history . The Hatian invasion in Dominican republic is a seperate a legit article that was originally on the countrys main article page someone merged it and changed the title to make fun of a very dark time and massacres of thousands of men women and children just for being white hispanics in a time where there was no more slavery. the person who made these huge changes was anti Dominican and abusing there power please unmerge the two articles and place the correct one.148.101.133.119 (talk) 15:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

"The Hatian Invasion of the Dominican republic"

it should be called what it actually was a HATIAN INVASION of the Dominican republic. historical fact that hatian editors keep trying to change.148.101.133.119 (talk) 18:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Please unmerge the two articles of ¨unification of hispanola¨ unmerge the original article the Hatian invasion of Dominican republic.

Can someone unmerge the two articles and place back the ´Hatian invasion of Dominican republic´ . the unification of hispanola article has alot of fabrications and lies based and nonsense from fictional books not reliable history books. PLEASE UNMERGE THE ARTICLES190.166.137.45 (talk) 04:47, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic groups information is quite wrong

 Meztisos
 72.9% Mixed Tri Racial -Taino indian,White,african mix
 16.1% White
 10.9% African
 0.1% Asian  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kate2020 (talk • contribs) 23:47, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

The information in the Ethnic groups of the DR, added by some unregistered user causing a mess, is absolutly wrong. It says:


But "Dominican" is not an ethnic group, is the demonym of the people fron the DR (and also from Dominica, another caribbean island). And "Haitian" is not an ethnic group either, they're only the others habitants of the west part of the same island and the greatest inmigrant group in the DR.

The information should be reverted as before, that information above does not even has a reference to back it up. The old information was backed up on a previous census quite years ago. It goes pretty much as:

72.9% Mixed 16.1% White 10.9% Black 0.1% Yellow

Reference: Cuarto Censo Nacional de Población, 1960. Santo Domingo: Oficina Nacional de Estadísticas. 1966. p. 32.

I'm not aware of any other census later with the same information.

Also, do not confused (as I've read it in some of edit of this page too) "Mixed" with "Mestizos", is not the same. Mestizo are persons that descendents from native americans and europeans.

It doesn't matter who make the change to fix this error, I only want it to be fixed because is quite wrong and pretty controversial.

 Partly done: I removed the |ethnic_group parameter and its values since the information was either unsourced or poorly-sourced. I am not adding the information above since it is decades out of date and does not add useful information. I agree that "Dominican" and "Haitian" are nationalities and not ethnic groups, so the information was at best misleading. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Meztiso means Multi racial not just native american and white which Dominicans also are in a vast majority even with all this haitian invasion in DR . the real Origin of Dominicans are meztiso tri racial people just like every other hispanic country, numbers dont lie and theres only 5 million Dominicans in DR not 10 million u cannot count the hatian immigrants. So yes over all its a population of 10 million but the 5 million Dominicans are indeed Meztiso mixed Multi racial people that has been proven by the unniversaty of UASD in Dominican republic on august of 2018

The Dominican Republic is simply not a Mestizo country. An example of a Mestizo country is Mexico. Most Tainos/Native American populations in the Dominican Republic were wiped out. The Dominican Republic is primarily a mulatto country of African and Spanish ancestry. Mestizos are those of Native American and European ancestry and anyone whose been to the Dominican Republic can attest that mestizos are not prevalent at all in our population.2604:6000:1311:8791:4C0:9584:7A44:E4BD (talk) 19:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The user above said the Dominican Republic only has 5 million people (simply not true) because apparently there's 5 million undocumented Haitians. This whole "Mestizo" thing is rooted in racism and as a Dominican it's an absolute joke. 2604:6000:1311:8791:4C0:9584:7A44:E4BD (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic group section is from 1966

Please take this out. Yoandri Dominguez Garcia 02:25, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

you have allowed someone to literally grab false info from a cia demo page to determine the accurate amount of ethnic backround in Dominican republic. with this Hatian invasion presently going on the unniversaty of UASD as of 2018 has done a study confirming that out of a 10 million population in DR more then 5 million people are hatian. the CIA page is counting hatians in there incorrect detail of Dominicans ethnic backround and they have no way to prove how they got there results and to whom they studied on.Based on the fact that there is a massive amount of african hatians currently in DR the CIA results in INACCURATE WRONG and an abuse of power to change something which the country of DR should be entitled to do the study and determine for themselves since they are the ones living there and going through there ordeals with hatian migrants 247. Until DR doesnt do a accurate ethnic backround check and count down of people who are non HATIAN and who are in fact of Dominican bloodline families as the constitution of DR states then you can change the ethnic results until then the old census ethnic list should be placed back because it is as accurate as it can be to this day. 73% Tri racial, 16%white 11%african nothing more nothing less.148.101.133.119 (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

You are a RACIST. 2604:6000:1311:8791:4C0:9584:7A44:E4BD (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2018

WE ARE NOT MULATTO WER ARE MULTI RACIAL ALSO HAVE A LARGE AMOUNT OF TAINO NATIVE AMERICAN BLOOD THAT IS WHAT MAKES US MULTI RACIAL!! Kate2020 (talk) 06:31, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: I've updated the infobox to use the information from the CIA World Factbook, which uses self-reported information and estimates from 2014, instead of the outdated 1960 census. rchard2scout (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

You are a RACIST and will do anything to deny African roots. Most of us have little to no Taino ancestry as these people were wiped out by colonization. You're acting like Dominicans look like Cesar Chavez.2604:6000:1311:8791:4C0:9584:7A44:E4BD (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Guanche DNA in Dominican Republic

In recent times, Dominican and Puerto Rican researchers identified in the current Dominican population the presence of genes belonging to the aborigines of the Canary Islands (commonly called Guanches). These types of genes have also been detected in Puerto Rico: Un estudio descubre la presencia de genes guanches en la República Dominicana , Estudio del genoma Taíno y Guanche.--87.223.224.78 (talk) 10:13, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Charles Leclerc - link

Link for general Charles Leclerc leads to Charles Leclerc (racing driver). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.230.127.213 (talk) 07:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Ethnic Group section

There is simply no way to present an accurate ethnic group section given the country hasn't had a census since 1960 and there is deep rooted self hate and racism in this nation and a ruling white political elite who will never attest to this nation's true blackness. Currently the article states that the Dominican Republic is a majority mestizo country (white and Native American) which is simply not true. Even Tri-Racial is a stretch given most Dominicans have less than 10% Taino DNA if any at all. In this very talk page section there is a bevy of antihaitianismo and racism, it really is disgusting. The Dominican Republic is a majority mulatto country, period. The Cibao region is where most white Dominicans reside with most black Dominicans being to the South and coastal areas. I am requesting edit or deletion of the ethnic group section because it is simply not accurate. Anyone whose been to the Dominican Republic and is not a racist or brainwashed by Dominican politics can tell you it is not a mestizo country.2604:6000:1311:8791:4C0:9584:7A44:E4BD (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, I found two different sources giving a more accurate estimate for the dominican population at 45% Mixed (Mulatto), 40% Black, and 15% White which I think it is definitely what the Dominican Republic population really is and it's diaspora

http://hisprint.org/filerequest/9396 http://hisprint.org/dominican-republic/travel-to-dominican-republic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:584:C001:1360:C1A2:C650:968:1A12 (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 January 2019

Please change the nominal GDP from $81.65 billion to $86.568 billion and the nominal per capita GDP from $7,932.22 to $8,323.40. Also change the GDP PPP from $186.983 billion to $200.639 billion and the GDP per capita PPP from $18,164.46 to $19,291.06. The reason for this request is that the old numbers are from last year and these new numbers are from this year. The source is the same. Santiaguero95 (talk) 23:06, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

 Not done: Per WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL, the provided source's numbers are indicated as estimates.  Spintendo  15:40, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The previous numbers are also estimates and other countries' gdp info are also estimates. Santiaguero95 (talk) 12:59, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Can someone please update the GDP info please?

This is the first time someone has ever rejected an edit request for the GDP info. All other countries have their GDP info updated and they use the same source. Can a sane person please do something about this? Santiaguero95 (talk) 14:43, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 March 2019

Update GDP info to this year's numbers. This is the first time someone has ever rejected that source. Other countries use the same source and the estimates and those countries have their GDP info of this year. 2601:18C:D07F:FED3:A101:D9C5:287F:63F4 (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

 Done @Spintendo: The latest GDP estimate is used in country articles in most cases. Danski454 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dominican_Republic/Archive_4&oldid=1083511686"